Troy's (long) briefs - ' Long Johns'

Troy's briefs are back.

.

Regionalisation Prescott's Dream

with thanks to Dr Richard North










,

John Prescott - Regionalisation

There is a much more powerful reason, other than his recently announced affair, why the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott (formaly two Jags now two Shags) should be removed from office as soon as possible.

For, although he is widely regarded as a buffoon, it is largely this man who, almost single-handedly, has put the EU-related regionalisation programme on the Labour Party’s agenda, and kept it there despite the wishes of many - including Tony Blair.

An explanation and short history:

The Labour Party had endorsed the concept of Regionalisation in 1995 then it backed off from its own proposals to established fully-fledged regions with their own elected assemblies.

.

Instead, it settled for indirectly elected regional chambers (later the name was changed to Regional Assemblies) which would not compete with local government.

.

A similar approach was adopted in a 1996 Labour policy document entitled: "A New Voice for England's Regions", and in the 1997 manifesto. Both documents made it clear that, where there were calls for the creation of regional assemblies, popular approval would first have to be demonstrated in regional referendums.

.

Prescott established a "Regional Policy Commission" This recommended that each region should have a Regional Development Agency (RDA) "to promote economic development in the region with an accountable and strategic regional framework".

.

Such was the power of Prescott that he managed to put on the Party’s manifesto a reference to RDAs and, in the Queen's Speech of 14 May 1997, the newly elected Labour government, under Tony Blair, announced its intention to create them. The RDAs themselves, were to be Prescott's "Trojan horse" – embryonic organisations which would, in the fullness of time blossom out into full-blown regional governments.

.

However, the Labour Party remained lukewarm on further regionalisation, and there were indications of tension between Blair and Prescott on the issue. For instance, in July 1999, the EU commission was proposing to cut the assisted areas in the UK, from covering 34 percent of Britain's population to 29 percent. Prescott was reported as seeing that the "obvious answer" to the cuts was to press on with "the next stage of devolution" - setting up elected assemblies in the eight English regions outside London.The same report observed that this was "far from obvious" to Blair, who was held to believe firmly that central government should only move in this direction when there was a clear demand coming from the regions.

.

As a further indication of where Prescott stood, the report continued:''Nevertheless, some regional politicians want to move a bit faster. Last week, the North-West Regional Assembly, which is the unelected supervisory body for the regional development agency, agreed to set up a "constitutional convention" chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool, to work out a plan for an elected assembly. A similar body has already been set up in the north-east. All of this activity is being enthusiastically egged on by Mr Prescott.''

By January 2001, however – with talk of election in the air – "insiders" were noting the emergence of a Prescott-Brown axis in support of regionalisation. The chancellor had promised that a second-term Labour government would strive to create a "Britain of nations and regions" as part of its bid to secure an economic renaissance outside the prosperous south of England.

.

Brown then suggested a new package of regional policies could be unveiled in the manifesto, or shortly after the election, hinting that this might include a commitment to directly elected regional government. "As we develop regional policies that are locally generated and managed, there has to be local and regional accountability too", he told a conference at the University of Manchester Science and Technology Institute.

.

Members of the pro-devolution Campaign for the English Regions had welcomed the Chancellor's comments, suggesting they were the result of an alliance between Brown and Prescott, "who is strongly in favour of regional government".

.

Prescott's aides had also been "raising the stakes in the internal battle to commit the party to a strong regional dimension in its forthcoming manifesto". Late the previous year Richard Caborn, the trade minister and a close friend of Mr Prescott, had told a Fabian Society meeting in York: "I believe the radical programme of constitutional change we embarked on in 1997 is incomplete without an answer to the so-called English question. Regions need a clear voice to promote economic development and that in my view is best achieved through (elected) regional assemblies".

.

Prescott seemed to have got his way in March 2001. Blair, "known to be cool on further devolution in the wake of the creation of the Scottish and Welsh parliaments" told business leaders in Cardiff that the government was ready to go further. But only with the consent of people living in the regions. This was regarded as a "massive boost" to regional campaigners.

.

Two weeks earlier, Prescott had promised delegates at Labour's spring conference a green paper on regional government.Despite this, when the Labour Party issued its manifesto just before the June election, it was content merely to "strengthen regional economies with venture capital funds and new powers for reformed Regional Development Agencies". And its promise to make provision for directly elected government in the regions was vague, hedged with the referendum caveat and the condition that "predominantly unitary local government" had to be established.

.

The tension between Blair and Prescott continued when there was no reference to English regions in the Queen's speech announcing the newly elected Labour government's legislative programme. This brought an intervention from Europhile Peter Mandelson, former Northern Ireland secretary and then "self-appointed champion of the regions". He warned that unless Westminster shed more power to the regions it would risk a two-tier England that was "dangerously unbalanced".

.

The pressure succeeded. At the earliest possible opportunity after the election, with the manifesto condition for "unitary authorities" far from satisfied, Prescott pushed out not a green but a white paper. Never mind that, with his co-author, Stephen Byers, he was besieged by the problems of Railtrack and an almost complete breakdown in the rail system. Clearly, for Mr Prescott, elected regions were more important – even to the extent of confronting his own prime minister

.

But then, Mr Prescott, born in 1938, is no ordinary politician. Best known for his garbled syntax, behind the façade of an amiable – and sometimes not so amiable – blunderer, lies a man with an iron will.

.

As a 17-year-old merchant seaman, he fought a bitter battle for the National Union of Seamen in a lengthy strike which led to its leadership – including Mr Prescott – being described by Harold Wilson as a "tightly knit group of politically motivated men". He joined the Labour Party in 1956, was parliamentary election agent for Chester in 1964 and stood as a Labour candidate for Southport in 1966. Four years later, he was elected to his present constituency, Kingston upon Hull East.

.

There is also a considerable "European" dimension to Mr Prescott’s career. In 1973, he became a delegate to the Council of Europe, where he spent two years, emerging as leader of the British Labour group. He then joined the European Parliament in 1975. That was at the height of Labour's referendum campaign for continued membership of the "Common Market" and just as the nascent regional policy was emerging in the EEC, with the launch of the ERDF. And so strong were his "European" credentials that he was offered, but declined, the position of EU commissioner.

.

Thus, Prescott's introduction to European politics came some thirty years ago. From his own mouth, he dates his enthusiasm for regional policy "…back more than 30 years". Therefore, either shortly before or, given some latitude for an "approximate" 30 years, during his tenure as a UK delegate to the Council of Europe, Mr Prescott became a convert to regionalism.

.

It seems hard to believe that his thinking was not influenced by ideas then current in the Council, or subsequently while he was in the European Parliament.

.

Not long after his return from "Europe" in 1981, undoubtedly still imbued with enthusiasm for regional policy, Prescott became Labour's regional affairs and devolution spokesman, under Michael Foot, who asked him to draw up a new policy framework to secure agreement for devolution for Scotland, Wales and the English regions. The result was a publication: "Alternative Regional Strategy: a framework for discussion", which set out plans for devolving power to Scotland and Wales and, predictably, the creation of English regions. To these objectives, Prescott, with his background in European politics, would remain constant.

.

Crucially, in 1989, Prescott was elected to the Labour Party's ruling body, the National Executive Council (NEC). Also on the NEC was another ardent regionalist, Sir Jeremy Beecham, then Labour leader of Newcastle upon Tyne City Council.

.

Having served on the NEC's Local and Regional Government sub-committee, Beecham was also Vice Chairman of the Northern Regional Councils Association. He was Chairman of the Local Government Association (LGA), was leader of its Labour Group, and was to become Chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. He was made President of the British Urban Regeneration Association (BURA) in 1995 and served as a member of the President of the Board of Trade's Working Party on Competitiveness. From 1987 to 1996, he worked with the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust, an organisation that generously funds the Campaign for English Regions and which financed much of the Scottish Constitutional Convention that pressured for Scottish devolution.

.

Apart from their positions on the NEC, Prescott and Beecham would have had ample reason for meeting frequently and indeed they did, not least when Prescott in July 1997 – shortly after Labour came to power - invited Beecham to work in a joint venture called the "The Central-Local Partnership". This had been set up by the government and the LGA as "a forum for central and local government to work together to tackle the multiple causes of social and economic decline, and to improve local services".

.

Together, the Prescott-Beecham partnership has worked quietly and steadily to pave the way for regionalisation – often on arcane initiatives such as the “reform” of local government finance which would allow local authorities to take out capital loans without first having to seek central government approval.

.

This would enable regional authorities to approach the EIB for loans without needing to refer to the government.But the vital element of the relationship was the route into the LGA through Beecham's chairmanship. This was important because the LGA's sister organisation, with which it shares an office in Brussels, is the Local Government International Bureau (LGIB). It serves as its European and international arm and, in particular, acts as the UK member of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions - one of the main driving forces behind regionalisation in Europe.In England, the LGA – with Beecham at is head – is the driver of regionalisation, co-ordinating a plethora of allied associations, including the ERN, all moving towards the same end.

.

The role of these "allied associations" was noted by a University of Wales researcher who concluded that bottom up "local authority regionalism" had emerged in the 1990s through them.

.

Funded by constituent authorities and composed of nominated members and seconded officers, these associations, he asserted, were working to create agreed policy on economic development, transport and land use questions and EU structural funds policy.Small wonder that when Prescott published his White Paper, his co-enthusiast, Sir Jeremy, responded positively: "The LGA is keen to ensure that regional assemblies have the backing of local people and that the process for establishing them does not divert councils from improving their services to local people. Regional assemblies should embody a genuine devolution of power from Whitehall".

.

Unlike thousands of councillors, a hostile media and an unenthusiastic public, he had no qualms whatsoever about the idea. It was, in typical Prescott style, a matter of how, not whether.
.
In the North East serious persuasion (under the direct supervision of Prescott) of the business community was undertaken in the eighteen months prior to the elected regional assembly election. Prescott was determined that the business organisations in the north east were brought 'on side' without delay.

.

Despite the rejection of the ideal by the overwhelming "no" vote in the North-East region (78 per cent against) the agenda continues to this day, pushed by Prescott, imbued with his thirty-year-old enthusiasm, engendered by his work in the Council of Europe and supported amazingly by the Federation of Small Businesses and the Chamber of Commerce.

.

Not many Labour MP's on the benches, in private, now seem to show as much enthusiasm for regionalisation and, should Prescot depart, there is some hope (not least from Blair) that the regionalisation project will be quietly dropped from the governments agenda.


j j j

Notes: from the editor's diary.

The 'double devolution' plans recently devised by David Milliband are not about devolution they are, in actuality, firmly about centralisation. To state that: ''central government lets go of central control'' (John Wright May/June North East Regional Voice) is to accept at face value what the government is saying and to fundamentally misunderstand the true nature of what is being proposed.

It is like some other forms of doubling. Such as double negatives, and double think. Not really about devolution and localisation --more about centralisation of government but with an extra layer of spin. An elaboration of the detail on this point on this issue is available upon request.
.
In the summer of 2003 when Tony Blair was invited to address a meeting of the Labour Party organised and funded North East Business Forum. At that meeting I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning the level of his personel support for regionalisation. The PM's surprisingly frank reply that ''others in the Cabinet are more enthusiastic of regionalision that I am'' is evidence of the extent that Prescot had pushed his project against the wishes of his Labour Party Cabinet colleagues.

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) in 1998 established Regional Policy Units, primarily aimed at maintaining a watching brief on the then new RDA's. I recall, with some bemusement, when the newly formed OneNorthEast produced the first of their many consultation papers which I noted omitted to any reference to contact details.

I was persuaded, very much against my better judgement, not to make an adverse comment either in the press or directly on how that ommision reflected badly in the actuality of the new Quango's real interest in receiving comments. The philosophy of ''don't upset'' and ''moving forward'' with the Orwellian OneNorthEast curiously continues to this day as the an intrigal part of the partnership arangements with the RDA.

The Sunday Quote -

''The big print giveth and the fine print taketh away''

J Fulton Sheen (1895-1979)

The green man

David Cmeron communing with his melting glacier

.

"If I read another word about climate change, I shall go mad," writes Edward Celiz of Bodham Halt, Norfolk in today's Sunday Telegraph letters. in so doing, he echoes precisely the sentiment of this blog.

.

If the Boy King (The Rt Hon David Cameron, MP Leader of Her Majesty's offocial and loyal opposition) ) mentions his 'green revolution', once more, we on this blog will all scream.

.

"Edward Celiz's letter is preceded by one of slightly more weight, written as it is by 41 scientists who, according to the heading, "debunk global warming alert". All of them eminent in the climate field, they venture the opinion that "global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise'". They also note that "observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future".

.

For anyone who cares to explore the subject, there is no end of sources that will confirm that view, the sum of which affirm that, far from being consensus, or the issue being fixed, the arguments over global warming are far from resolved and the issues are, in fact, highly contentious.

.

In one positive development in an otherwise bleak landscape, Booker has been pulled out of semi-obscurity in the inside back page of the Sunday Telegraph, where we was consigned by the erstwhile, unlamented editor Sarah Sands.

.

Mr Booker has been returned to his former glory by the new editor, Patience Wheatcroft, in what we hope will now be the start of the paper's reversion to a proper newspaper.

.

In his column (which is essential reading for all attendees at the Bruges Group meeting on Tuesday evening) charts the damage John Prescott has done to British democracy, and also points up Defra's latest gaffe – a hilarious reporting error.

.

A story in The Times yesterday, which reported the Boy King in trouble over his choice of car. No sooner was he back from Norway in his gas-guzzling private jet, having communed with his melting glacier, than the Greens were protesting that he had failed to pick the most environmentally-friendly option for his next chauffeur-driven car - to be provided at the taxpayers' expense, on top of the Boy's £125,000 salary.

.

The Greens wanted Cameron to take a petrol-electric hybrid Toyota Prius but, instead, the leader of the opposition opted for a Lexus GS 450h.

.

Cameron is going to regret he ever opened this can of worms.However, that has not stopped him prattling away in a vacuous opinion piece in the Sunday Telegraph, the centrepiece of which is his "radical agenda for greener cars" which he is to announce tomorrow.

.

Cameron wants – or so he tells us – "Britain to be at the forefront of international efforts to build a new generation of motor vehicles that are much less environmentally damaging." Such a programme, he adds, "will include significant incentives to encourage the ownership of newer, greener vehicles."Unsurprisingly, these "international efforts" are remarkably similar to those set out by the EU last year, which rather proves ours and Booker's point. The Boy King has simply bought into the EU "green agenda" and, what is worse, he is now trying to pass it off as an expression of "traditional Conservative values".

Happy Brirthday Ma'am

A very Happy Birthday to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

on the occasion of her 80th Birthday

Cameron's gaffe

The Blog Editor, Peter Troy who as a former UKIP candidate awaits David Cameron's apology, above pictured in Scotland during the 2004 European Parlimament Elections.

.

l

.
As fruitcake recipes are suddenly in vogue in certain offices in Brussels, the unsavoury joke doing the rounds at the moment, following the Boy King's (David Cameron) incredible UKIP gaffe yesterday, is that the next election-winning stunt planned by the Tories is to recruit a cadre of experienced suicide bombers to blow up central office.

.
That at least would give tangible form to what effectively amounts to the slow electoral suicide being committed by the Conservative party as it insults the very voters it needs if it is to win at the next contest.
.

That the Boy King's experiment in "modern compassionate conservatism" is failing is borne out by the latest Times Populus survey, taken over the weekend. It suggests that despite the Labour Party being in almost complete meltdown, its support is holding up in the polls, up one point since early March to 36 percent, while the not-the-conservative-party is down one point at 34 percent.
.

When even the Telegraph turns against Cameron, you know he is in trouble. Its leader is headed, "UKIP deserves better", declaring that "if the Conservatives have a strategy to denigrate UKIP, in the hope of halting the erosion of their own vote, they should remember Michael Howard's blunder before the 2004 European elections."

.
It was then that he called UKIP leaders "cranks and gadflies", whence their vote climbed appreciably. Given the commendable cussedness of the British, Mr Cameron's suggestion that party members are "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" will almost certainly have the same effect.

.
Commenting on the sincerely-held beliefs of UKIP supporters, the leader then concludes that "it is precisely this sneering indifference to people's passionate concerns that makes them so fed up with politics," adding that "the Tory leader should apologise."

.
Of course, the Boy King will not apologise. What he said yesterday he holds to be self-evidently true and, if he runs to form, his view will be that, once again, the people – and the Telegraph – have failed to recognise this truth. That is their fault, not his.
.

It is not so much, the "sneering indifference" that is the Boy King's problem, therefore. It is that he inhabits so different a planet from the rest of us that he cannot even begin to understand that he has made a mistake

.

Such is his mindset that there should be a good job waiting for him in the EU commission, when his despairing colleagues finally throw him out. The only question now is whether that will be before or after the Conservatives lose the general election.

The chicken and the egg

State funding widens the gap between government and governed writes Daniel Hannan in The Telegraph today, in a cogent piece that argues that taxpayers’ cash will guarantee more party sleaze.

.

To develop his thesis, he points to experience in Europe, where state funding is the norm and has neither bridged the divide between the ruling classes and the people nor cleaned up what Hannan rates as "the dirtiest political systems".

.

Good as his piece is, however, what Hannan doesn't do is suggest an alternative to state funding, or even offer an analysis of why the political parties in this country have got themselves in such a mess over financing their activities.

.

Arguably, though, the way out is the more important issue for, if the voters rebel at the thought of doshing out their hard-earned cash to keep the political classes in the luxury they palpably do not deserve, then alternative means of funding have to be found.

.

Oddly enough, the answer is already there, in the Conservatives' own supposed manifesto, in which they laud the merits of localism. If they look to their own past, they will see that the formidable strength of the Tory electoral fighting machine was in its local constituency associations, which could collect money and turn out the troops to bring in the votes.

.

But, as with politics in general, over the years we have seen massive centralisation in political parties, with elections and fund-raising being managed from central office, with the local associations being relegated to a bit-part role and the views and skills of local campaigners being largely ignored.

.

To a very great extent, "Europe" – as they insist on calling the European Union – has played a great part in this. The constituencies are largely Eurosceptic, at odds with their own party hierarchy, to the extent that there are two Conservative parties, inhabiting entirely different planets.

.

To rely on the constituencies and their funding means getting in touch with your grass roots, asking what people think, listening to them and then acting on what they say. In other words, the political classes have to respond to their own local parties, instead of running their own agendas.And it is this that the central office control freaks find so difficult to do. For them who want to dictate rather then respond, such reliance is an anathema. It is much easier, therefore, to tap up a few rich men and corporate sources, to enable them to run their own campaigns, sucking up to the Westminster media village (who are just as out of touch as the politicos) and laying down the law to the locals.

.

Combine that with the inherent and almost insufferable arrogance of that group of people collectively known as "Tory boys", who labour (if I can use that word) under the impression that they have any value to society at all, and who insulate themselves so successfully from the real world that they feel the need to talk only to themselves, and you have a self-referential society that has lost the art of listening and responding.

.

Thus, although we can take it from Hannan that state funding would widen the gap between government and governed, the real problem is that that gap already exists – it has already been created by the party machines and the current funding crisis is a symptom rather than a cause of the problem.

.

Within that framework, all state funding would actually do is cement in the evils that already exist – the chicken that was there long before the egg.

.

If the parties do seriously want to narrow the gap, then they have to revert to their own local associations, and rely on ordinary party activists to take up the slack. But, as that means listening to people and responding to them, that is unlikely to happen.

A dispatch from the bunker

Above, a Royal Obserever Corps Post Bunker - Huntingdon, Derbyshire. One of 1563 bunkers that were a part of the UK nuclear attack monitoring defence system of which the Editor of the blog was a serving member during the latter stages of the Cold War .

.

.

Obervational dispatch

by Dr Richard North

.

Things have come to a pretty pass when I actually agree with Simon Jenkins, but his piece today in the Sunday Times, headed "Desperate dispatches from the banana republic of Great Britain" is right on the button.

.

He starts by recording the disastrous collapse of the single farm payment scheme, leaving England's 120,000 farmers begging for their subsidies. He then notes that although Margaret Beckett, Defra’s secretary of state had declared: "I take full responsibility," all she actually meant was that she had just sacked one of her officials, Johnston McNeill, so as to save the skin of her farm minister, an obscure Tony crony called Lord Bach. The latter had spent six months deriding critics of his scheme as "shoddy" and creating "unfounded alarm and uncertainty".

.

The shambles at Defra, writes Jenkins, might win more publicity were a similar litany of woe not rising from every corner of Whitehall. He then goes on to record but a mere fraction of them which put together, speak of a nation, the administration of which is falling apart at the seams.

.

Booker picks up on the single farm payments shambles, in the limited space afforded him, calling it "easily the worst administrative fiasco the government has created in farming since the foot and mouth epidemic in 2001", and notes that it is in part due to "the unique complexities of the system devised for England by Margaret Beckett, and the collapse of the computer system devised by Accenture (the same company that is responsible for the chaos engulfing a £6 billion computer system for the NHS)."He also notes that, while Johnston McNeill, as head of the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has been suspended, he continues to draw his £160,000 a year salary.

.

Failure, it seems, is no bar to prosperity when you are in Blair’s public service. Jenkins notes that part of the trouble with the NHS is Hewitt’s extraordinary decision to proceed with Accenture’s £6 billion “choose-and-book” computer. This is an unnecessary machine, he writes, for which no health professional ever asked and which was sold to her predecessors by the smooth-talking salesmen now beating a path to the softest touch in global computer procurement, the British taxpayer.

.

A leaked report in February suggested that the NHS computer may end up costing a mind-numbing £ 50 billion.The Sunday Times business section cites one public procurement expert saying the scheme had been "cretinously and ineptly procured… the reality is that the original deal was hammered through with very little real understanding of the consequences on either side. Some of the participants had no idea what they were taking on."

.

Yet, as The Business reports, Accenture is now to bid for the contract to provide biometric technology for the UK's identity registry, which will underpin the government's identity card scheme.That, in a way is good news. If its efforts are at least as good as its work RPA and the NHS, Accenture will ensure that the identity card scheme will never actually function, but the one certainty is that even the LSE’s pessimistic forecast of £18 billion for the cost of the scheme will be a gross underestimate. Jenkins records that the cost is escalating past £12 billion towards, on one estimate, £30 billion.This is not public administration but public chaos Jenkins adds despairingly, but it is not only the administration which is going to wrack and ruin.

.

Henry Porter in The Observer sets out the savage damage done to the constitution by New Labour, echoing a theme we have raised in this blog, with a call for a Bill of Rights. Porter’s thesis is that Labour's programme of legislation challenges the British constitution like no other administration before it.

.

In a thousand tiny - and not so tiny - cuts Labour threatens our rights and freedoms, the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament. For the past two weeks he has been going through all the Labour legislation that has reduced our freedoms, compromised our rights and menaced the life of Parliament. He found it an extremely depressing experience, not least because he has now discovered that parliament – "your and my elected representatives" - has been sidelined. Welcome to the world, Porter.

.

From the sublime to the ridiculous, though, Jeremy Clarkson takes us to his world, a world infested with speed cameras, the increase in numbers of which, he shows, exactly matches the slackening off in the rate of decline in road deaths. Commenting on those who have fallen foul of the reign of Gatso, he observes that he’s be willing to bet they'd trade Tony Blair's idea of a nation state for anything. Even the EU.

.

We cannot agree, as things are hardly better there. For instance, The Business records in depth the total Horlicks that Peter Mandelson is making of EU trade policy while Allister Heath asks: "Is France ungovernable".

.

However, Clarkson does have a point. Excuse me while I retreat to my bunker.

The 150 th Sunday Qoute

Our 150 th offereing today is:

''Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.''

George Orwell (Eric Blair) 1903 - 1950

.

Note - The Sunday Quote has been published since 2003 on various websites and discussion forums. Recently The Sunday Quote received the ultimat accolade from a political commentator, that of being quoted.

Changing times

Well it is cold, windy wet and downright miserable in our green and (mostly) pleasant land. At 1 am (01.00 hrs GMT) British Summer Time (BST} began and the clocks in the Realm were advance one hour.

In a bid to boost the nations moral (and perhaps improve the weather) a three year trial of double summertime (last introduced during the Second World War) was introduced by Lord Tanlaw, a 'crossbencher'. Under Lord Tanlaw's Bill the clocks would not go back an hour in October but stay an hour ahead until next March. An other hour would then be added until the following October.The change would make the most of daylight hours by providing an extra hour of evening daylight throughout the year.

Lord Tanlaw said that the most compelling case for change was that the potential to save 100 lives on the UK's roads each year. He added that other pros included ''a deterrent to early evening crime and gaining £1bn a year in tourist revenue.''

The Bill received enthusiastic cross-party backing, but Lord Sainsbury a government minister and substantial donor to the Labour Party would not support the plans. The Bill did gain an unopposed second reading but without Government backing it has no chances of becoming law. A consideration of course is that if the UK were to be an extra hour a head of our European ''partners'' that would put the clocks back on the process of further integration into the European Union.

Thanks be to our soldiers

When British, American and other coalition soldiers risk their lives to save one British and three Canadian peace campaigners (pictured above) from terrorists who had kidnapped them. Then it becomes “release”. Or so it seems from the various comments on the BBC Website.

.

The Kember family, for instance, released the following statement:

.
“We are very pleased that Norman and his friends are safe.
We are grateful for all the support we have had from so many people since Norman was taken hostage.
We also thank everyone who has worked so hard for him to be set free.”

.
Well, how nice. Who worked so hard? And who actually set him free?

.

Common decency requires gratitude to the soldiers who had gone in there not knowing whether they would come out alive and unharmed. But common decency seems to be in short supply among Christian peace campaigners.

.
In the long list of people quoted by the BBC, only the Prime Minister’s spokesman used the word “rescue”. Even that statement was mealy-mouthed but better than the Foreign Secretary’s who appeared to think that all these people had somehow been freed in some unexplained fashion.

.
Michelle Malkin (who else?) prints some letters of outraged Christians to the Christian Peacemakers Teams, who are rejoicing on their website at the “release” of their friends and comrades.

.
One letter deservs special reference:

.
“Congratulations on the safe return of your activists. I'm sorry they did not all make it home safely. I read your press release relating the "release" of the activists; please note that they were not released, they were rescued. The term release implies that their captors let them go. You know that is not true, they were rescued by a team of American and British soldiers who risked their lives to free people whom apparently have no gratitude for their actions. It is one thing to be against war and the actions of our military

(I'm not justifying that position, just acknowledging your right to it), but another to deny when they SAVED YOUR ASS!”

.

Couldn’t have put it better myself. (Well, I could, actually, by using the correct nominative case instead of the accusative in the third sentence.)

.
One could be excused, perhaps, to be overcome by a no doubt very unworthy wish that the soldiers had left this bunch of ungrateful individuals where they were.

Troy's (short) briefs

Brown delivers 10th Budget
Budget 2006: Key points
Budget 2006: Statement in full
Cameron takes on 'roadblock' Brown
Budget 2006: Business issues
Budget 2006: The economy Budget 2006: Public services
Budget 2006: Brown boosts families
Budget 2006: Tax and duties
Budget 2006: Athletes get £600m boost

The end of the week quote is from Chris Lloyd, Political Editor of The Northern Echo.

''........ Just as Mr Brown's Budget had very little to do with finances, so Mr Cameron's one-liners had nothing to do with policies or principles.'' The Northern Echo 23 March 2006

Well said sir, contiue with astute comments of that quality and I for one shall contiue to purcase the newspaper long after it has become a daily tabloid. Which will be a break in both a personal policy as well as a long held principle.

More Great Deception

The UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer The Right Honerable Gordon Brown MP will this afternoon unveil his tenth -and possibly his last Budget to the backdrop of the cash for peerages sleaze row that his shown the present Labour governement to be clearly institutionaly corrupt.

.

Mr Brown will no doubt portray Britain's economy as constasntly performing well. The essental truth is as we have featured in the past on this blog that British subjects are taxted on average (direct and indirect taxation) at a rate of over 36 per cent of their (average incomes).

.

When Mr Brown has ''sat down'' we will post a special edition of ''Troy's briefs'' which will bulge with details of the changes anounced by Gorden ''Prudence '' Brown; and the effects upon Her Majesty's over taxed, over governed, over spun, over regulated and over conned subjects.

.

After all that extra 6 billion per year needed to give (not loan) to the EU as the UK's additional 'membership fee' in a few years time will need to be raised somehow - after all the 'European money' needed to bribe the nations 3 million small business people will have to come from somewhere. Sadly most smaller business people have yet to rumble the greatest financial deception of modern government. The majorty of the nations true wealth creators are too busy (filling in government forms) to work out that they are only getting their own money back - less unacountable costs. in the form of various regional grants from 'Europe' which are dressed up and promoted by government agiencies (RDAs and Business Links) as generious development grants.

.

One businesses ('European') grant is an other businesses increased tax demand.

The mid week quote

'' If each of the millionairs ''lending'' money to the Labour Party were to finance an ailing hospital, he might earn his peerage.''

Letter to The Daily Telegraph, 21 March 2006

Official rat catcher dies

The homeless orphan who clawed his way from destitution to the very heart of the British Government serving under three prime ministers died at his retirement home in south London last week.

Humphery the former Downing Street Cat who wandered into the official residence of British prime ministers during the last days of Margaret Thatcher's permiership died in humble obscurity.

For years the black and white tom stalked the corridors of power ridding them of unwanted rodents at a rate that any corporate pest control operative could only marvel at. With his favourite Whiskas paid for by a Whitehall allowance of £100 per year Humphery became a well known and much respected official cat.

Humphrey, named after the civil servant in the television comedy Yes Minister became the only cat to be the subject of an official parliamentary question concerning the 'great robin massacre' which thanks to his political tenacity and frantic denials by his Cabinet Office minders, he managed to weather.

Shortly after Labour came to power in May 1997 rumers started to circulate that Mrs Prime Minister considered Humphrety to be unhygienic. The Labour spin doctors whirled into action arranging a photo call with Humphrey and Cherry in the garden of Number 10. The intrepid cat clung onto his job but was, as is the way in Whitehall, he was retired later in 1997. The Number ten press office put out a statement that a kidney problem rendered him unable to continue his work.

In an interesting twist The Daily Telegraph third leader today highlights a much talked about conspiracy theory that has been aired in the Westminster village. The rumour being that when Humphery had been destroyed on the orders of Cherie Blair.

The official line that Humphery had been retired on health grounds due to kidney failure has a serious flaw. How is it that the trusted retainer lived on an other 7 years to the ripe old age of 18 (over 90 in human years). Was the cat that died last week really Humphrey - had the original been ruthlessly put down by the new occupants in the autumn of '89 and the facts covered up ?

Suspicions will remain and add yet an other blot onto the history of Tony Blair's administration. This blog supports the call for a Royal Commission to establish the facts.

Additional research by Hector

Most people would just moan and pay up

Peter Troy - Photograph with thanks to The Northern Echo

.

Case Dismissed

By Peter Troy

.

Regular readers will recall that my new years revolution (resolution) was to set an example and to be (even) more revolting. The week before last Durham County Council gave me an opportunity to advance my objective.

As reported by Gavin Engelbrecvht in The Northern Echo on Saturday I successfully overturned a fixed penalty fine (£30) attached to my vehicle in a Durham side-street last April.

The problem started when Sophie overheated - the long drag up the MI from leafy Surrey had proved a tad to much for my recently orphaned new acquisition.

Sophie - a two litre diesel Rover 75 was a symbol of the state of the once great British motor Industry. The demise of Sopie's (so very British to name ones car I feel) makers in Longbridge Birmingham had just been announced and the stress resulted in the old girl breaking down in Durham. Well to be precise she overheated in a zone two parking area in the ancient City of Durham.

The Northern Echo reported:

'' Magistrates in Durham accepted that Peter Troy's claim that he had parked in a restricted area to allow his engine {actually Sophie's} to cool.

Mr Troy of Sedgefield said '' I was articulate and able to argue my case. Most people would just throw up their arms and pay the fine''.

Mr Troy, a former chairman of the Darlington branch of the Federation of Small Businesses said his problems started last April when his Rover 75 overheated in Leases Court....''

Breaking down when in a hurry is very annoying which was made worse by that very British entity - the petty official backed by an army of automations.

Gavin Englebrecht continues the story:

'' He returned after giving the car time to cool down to find that he had a £ 30 fixed penalty fine.Mr Troy sent the ticket back {that very day} with a note explaining what had happened. But he got a reply some months later saying if he did not pay he would be prosecuted. The system had gone into automatic mode.''

Despite many attempts to discuss the matter with the 'authority' which is a combination of Durham County Council and National Car Parks it was impossible to speak with anyone who had the authority to make allowances for any 'mitigating circumstances'.

So it came to pass that on the morning of Friday 10 March I found my self waiting out side court number 3 at Durham Magistrates' Court opposite Her Majesties Prison Durham charged with:

''......failing to pay the charge prescribed by Durham County Council (Durham City Zone 2) ...... contrary to Section 47 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1984 as amended.''

Well now, the prosecution solicitor had a thick file and a witnesses and I as they say in legal circles, was representing myself.

The first opportunity to upset the smooth running of my trial presented it self when I was asked how I pleaded. The clerk demanded my answer: ''Well sir'' I said ''I really don't know what to say.'' I am here because I did not pay, but I did not pay because I did not , I will argue, commit an offence. As the crime, that I am accused of is that I did not pay the fine - then I must plead guilty since I have not paid - but as I had not parked my car but had involuntarily stopped I am making a case to their Worships that I need not pay thus I am not guilty, but I admit not paying as stated by the Clerk on the summons to this court.

After some discussion which just about everyone in the court contributed to the case continued. I conducted my own defence in a manner of utmost respect to their Worships. However the Clerk was clearly less than impressed with my stout advocacy. After some 45 minites of detail accounts and questioning as to poor old Sophie's upset that day the Magistraits retired. Returning some half an hour later their Worships anounced in wonderful detail that ''the case had been dismissed.''

As I left the court I similed, but not smerked, as the usher opened the door for me - returning my smile I thought I heard him say ''bloody well done Sir'', but I could have been mistaken.

Who Governs the EU

"So, you thought the European constitution was dead, did you?” That is the heading of the op-ed in today's Daily Telegraph by Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP and darling of the Eurosceptic movement.

.

"Two years from now," he writes, "the European constitution will be in force - certainly de facto and probably de jure, too. Never mind that 15 million Frenchmen and five million swag-bellied Hollanders voted against it. The Eurocrats have worked out a deft way of getting around them."

.

Mr Hannon writes that the EU was "born out of a reaction against the Second World War, and the plebiscitary democracy that had preceded it", thus claiming that “the EU is based on the notion that "populism" (or "democracy", as you and I call it) is a dangerous thing.

.

"In so doing, he ignores the fact that the concept was born in the aftermath not of the Second, but the First World War and was a reaction to the failures of the League of Nations and its rule by unanimity, which prevented any robust action on contentious issues.

.

In the 1920s, therefore, Monnet and Salter (founders of what is now the EU) both sought a construction that would by-pass the unanimity rule, introducing the concept of "qualified majority voting". This would not only enable decisions to be made, but would safeguard the rights of the smaller nations as the weighting in the "qualified" structure would prevent the big nations ganging up on the "dwarfs" and imposing their demands on them.

.

Thus was born the core philosophy of the "Monnet method", which sought to replace the evil – as Monnet thought – of intergovernmentalism with the more benign doctrine of supranationalism.

.

Where Hannan gets his analysis wrong is that he fails to recognise that, although the "European Union" as an entity is powering ahead with issues which were introduced in the EU constitution, they are being implemented on an entirely different basis.

.

The aim of the EU constitution was to add to the commission's powers, collapsing the so-called "pillar" structure and bringing much of the intergovernmental nature of pillars two and three (Foreign and Security Policy & Justice and Home Affairs) into the maw of the supranational acquis.

.

But, with the rejection of the constitution by the Dutch and the French, the "pillars" stand intact. While policies named in the constitution are being added to the Union’s brief, the power is not going to the commission, but the European Council, with the council of ministers increasingly acting as subordinate structures to the Council.

.

In other words, there has been a fundamental shift in the nature of the EU, with member state governments re-asserting their authority, giving the Council more power.

.

On the other hand, the political power and the authority of the commission is ebbing away. What we are seeing, therefore, is the antithesis of Monnet's supranational integration and a reversion to intergovernmentalism.

.

This has profound implications. Not least, although the supranational model has massive structural imperfections, in its way it has a systematic element to it. Its proposals are published and their is a structure to their approval, not least through public discussions in the European Parliament. Thus, while we can rarely prevent new measures coming through, at least we know of them and know they are coming.Not so with the Council route. The Council, of all the EU institutions, is least transparent. There are no structures for its decision-making and there are neither EU nor national mechanisms for scrutiny of its actions. Much of what goes on in Council is neither recorded, witnessed nor understood, letting member states stitch up deals between them, with minimal interference or democratic input.

.

The upside is that, in it is own way, this structure bears within it the seeds of its own destruction.

.

As Monnet observed, the rule of unanimity does not work on the serious decisions, when national priorities reassert themselves. Already, we have seen this with the Lisbon process - and much else besides - so that little constructive can be expected from the new intergovernmentalism. More likely, the friction engendered by high expectations combined with the inability to deliver, will hasten the demise of the European Union.

The Sunday Quote

''Labour, n One of the processes whereby A acquires property for B.''

Ambrosia Bierce - The Devil's Dictionary, 1911

Tax Burden

Letter published today in The Northern Echo


Sir,

A report just published by a leading firm of Chartered Accountants points out the that the tax burden for British businesses, both small and large, is now the highest in modern times.

.
Gordon Brown has raised taxes massively in recent years but there has not been enough effective public opposition either from the political parties or amazingly from the main business organisations. So, for Brown, the increase in revenue has been relatively politically cost-free.

Unless Britain's businesses speak up clearly they will continue to be ignored in actuality by the present anti-business but pro public sector government.

The run-up to the budget - where Gordon Brown is likely to outrageously claim that he wants to make Britain more competitive - would be a good place for business organisations raise serious objections. Their message should be clear: Higher taxes undermine business competitiveness and make Britain less able to compete in the 21st Century global economy.

Peter Troy

Appaling arrogance

Plod Blair (Sir Ian Blair) Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has yet again proved his reputation as being "Institutionally Incompetent".

Senior Plod's latest faux pas is to have recorded a conversation (without agreement) with the Attorney General. amazingly regarding the possibilty using bugged telephone calls as evidence in trials of suspected terrorists.

In recent years the British Police have been obsessed with the enforcement of rules and procedures to a degree that is disproportionate to the public interest. Now Britain's most senior Policeman has been 'nicked' for arrogantly ignoring well defined rules. Regretably he was not issued with a fixed penalty fine !

The result of the Independent Police Complaints Commission Investigation into the killing of Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, which is currently before the Crown Prosecution Service is expected to result in criminal charges being brought against a number of the Police Officers involved in the sad killing. A separate investigation into Plod Blair's handling of events following the killing is expected to reveal charges of an attempted cover up by the Commissioner.

As is the way with these matters, the Prime Minister has announced that his name sake has his ''full support''. Clearly by the end of April the only support Plod Blair will receive is that of his senior colleagues escorting Sir Ian, an appaling arrogant public servant, out of the front door of New Scotland Yard.

Regulatory mindset

A recurring theme on this blog is that our membership of the European Union is not the cause of the increasing regulatory malaise in our society, but a symptom of it.

.

Our own government, as events have more than adequately demonstrated, is quite capable of generating its own mass of laws and restrictions without any assistance from the EU. To that extent, even if we left the EU tomorrow, it is doubtful whether we would notice any difference.

.

The problem is the "regulatory mindset", a belief that infects not only our legislators but society at large that the answer to all our problems is yet another law, government action or government control.

.

That malaise is summed up in the oft-heard phrase: "they (meaning the government, the council, or whatever) should do something about it".On that basis, simply addressing the quantity of legislation and seeking to reduce the number of regulations which apply to us, is not the answer. We have to deal with the mindset which gives forth the regulations in the first place.Nevertheless, that has not stopped the Telegraph today falling into the trap of calling for less regulation, its leader today declaring: "Labour should axe laws, not pass more of them".

.

To do it justice, it does point out that the law-making process itself has become a travesty with, as it writes, decisions being taken "by a handful of appointed advisers in Tony Blair's Downing Street 'den', then passed to Cabinet ministers for information only, before being promulgated publicly not through Parliament but through the media." It goes on to say that:

.
''The House of Commons increasingly resembles the worst sort of county council, where bemused councillors sit in thrall to the unelected officers who have assumed their powers. The House of Lords has become an expensive public house, open to anyone who can afford it. … ''

.

Cabinet, the Commons, the Lords - the three Parliamentary checks on the Prime Minister's executive power - have been eviscerated since 1997.Therein lies the Eurosceptic dilemma. We rail at the legislative process in Brussels, the lack of control, the lack of transparency and the inherent anti-democratic nature of it all yet, on our very doorstep, we have a regulatory machine which is just as mad, lacking control and transparency, to the extent that it too is anti-democratic.

.

Having identified this as a serious issue, the Telegraph leader tells us that it looks forward to some future British government cutting back on regulations but, in the meantime, it says, all laws should have an automatic "sunset clause", whereby they lapse after a number of years unless they are specifically renewed. New Labour should stop passing laws, and start repealing some.

.

In parallel with the leader, Philip Johnston writes the "Home Front" op-ed, headed "A Doomsday Machine for Parliament", in which he takes a tilt at the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill completed its committee stages in the Commons last Thursday.

.

"You have to admire the brass neck of this government," writes Johnston, describing the Bill. "After introducing more laws and regulations than you could shake a stick at, it is now trying to undo all the damage it has caused by foisting the legal equivalent of the Doomsday Machine upon Parliament and the country." It is, he decalres, "one of the most pernicious measures to have come before a British parliament."

.

He then tells us:

.
''The Bill would empower any minister by order to make provisions amending, repealing or replacing any legislation, primary or secondary, for any purpose, and to reform the common law to implement Law Commission recommendations.

.

This does not mean by a stroke of the pen; there would still need to be a debate or a vote in the Commons or the Lords, although only if MPs or peers object within a specified time frame.But if a government has a big enough majority, such procedural niceties are largely irrelevant. Furthermore, there would be no requirement for full scrutiny on the floor of either House, but only for a somewhat perfunctory debate in a committee.

.

The then adds:

.
''Indeed, the continued promulgation of Bills such as these will irrevocably change the sort of country we are because we have been defined over the centuries by the possession of parliaments that would never have countenanced such a grotesque proposal.

.

On this basis, he argues for the "sunset clause" under which the Bill would lapse after five years and need to be renewed. This would, he said, give Parliament a rare opportunity to consider whether the measure had fulfilled its purpose or not, the sort of post-legislative scrutiny that is almost non-existent at Westminster.

.

Only then, towards the end of his piece, does Johnston get to the nub of the issue, arguing that, instead of bringing forward the Bill, ministers could simply abandon their fetish for making laws on everything under the sun. The government should commit itself unequivocally to less legislation, he adds.Here, of course, we have to interject our common complain about the "elephant in the room", in that Johnston fails to point out that the bulk of the regulation affecting businesses comes not from London but from our superior government in Brussels.

.

Further, while he rails at the lack of scrutiny by Parliament of laws generated by Whitehall, is he not aware that Regulations (as opposed to Directives) promulgated by Brussels have direct effect – that is they come into law the moment they are "done" in Brussels, without even being considered by Westminster?

.

The fact is, though, that successive British governments actually like Brussels making laws for them. It saves them the trouble and time in framing their own laws, and the inconvenience of taking them through Parliament. It also gives them an alibi and a convenient lightning conductor, allowing them to wash their hands of unpopular legislation by letting Brussels take the blame.

.

On the other hand, a government that was inherently opposed to over-regulation could not countenance membership of the EU and would doubtless seek our withdrawal, simply because it would be unable to tolerate the blizzard of regulation coming from that source.

.

Thus, "sunset clauses" are not the answer. Returning to the central issue, over-regulation stems primarily from that all-important "regulatory mindset", which affects not only legislators but society as well. That is where the battle should lie, and needs to lie. Until we address that crucial issue, everything else is trimming round the edges.

The Sunday Quote 149

''It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the authorities are wrong''

Voltaire 1694 -1778

Compliments of Peter Troy

The great depression

The statue of wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill in a straitjacket which was unveiled in Norwich to draw attention to the stigma surrounding mental health has brought complaints from old soldiers and members of the late politician's family.

.

Norwich North MP Dr Ian Gibson and Cliff Prior, chief executive of mental health charity Rethink, revealed the statue inthe City as part of a campaign which is striving to stamp out stigma and ignorance surrounding issues such as manic depression

.

Sir Winston Churchill was chosen because despite dealing with the symptoms of manic depression throughout his life, he was able to become Prime Minister, lead the country during World War Two and be voted “The Greatest Briton” in the recentnational poll.

.

But political leaders and members of Sir Winston's family have condemned the “distasteful” and “inappropriate” statue.Nicholas Soames, Tory MP for Mid Sussex and Sir Winston's grandson, commented in the Eastern Daily Press “What seems to me a very worthwhile charity seems to have completely lost their way and done something which is offensive and stupid and turned a sensible campaign into a joke.”

.

Ray Holland, chairman of the Norwich branch of the Royal British Legion, said: “It does seem to me an inappropriate thing to do. I would have thought there are much less offensive ways of raising their image and getting their message acrossthan using a statue of Churchill. I am sure it will cause offence to a number of war pensioners and war widows.”

Perhaps, one must consider that had Sir Winston's inspired leadership, particularly in 1940, not saved our great nation from the evils of Nazi occupation mental health patients in Britain would have, as happened in Germany and Axis occupied teritoritories, been brutally mass murdered.

Statues are erected to portray a message and 'Rethinks' statue of the great man is no exception. The the final word, we believe, should go to the French Philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778): ''I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it''

Big regulation and small businesses

By Dr Helen Szamuely

.

Mr Nick Herbert, formerly Director of Reform, an extremely useful think-tank that has not yet managed to get the Conservative Party pay any attention to its free-market ideas, now Conservative MP for Arundel and South Downs, presented a Private Member’s Bill on Tuesday under the Ten Minute Rule.

.
Now, let us be reasonable. This Bill is going nowhere. Mr Herbert will be lucky to secure a Second Reading on some poorly attended Friday session. It is merely a way of putting down a marker – a slightly more effective one than an Early Day Motion. At least, there will be a Bill published.

.

The theme is that old chestnut, the exemption of small (in this case micro) businesses from regulation.

.

Mr Herbert’s argument is perfectly sound.

.
Small business makes an immense contribution to the economy. Small enterprises—those with fewer than 50 employees—make up over 99 per cent. of all businesses and over half of private sector employment.

.

As the economy moves toward higher, value-added activity, the share of it taken by small firms will only grow, so the weight of regulation now pressing on small businesses and hindering their wealth creation is an issue for us all. The Better Regulation Commission has estimated that the total cost of regulation facing the economy is now some £150 billion.

.

The Hampton review found that national regulators alone send out 2.6 million forms a year. Inevitably, this burden falls disproportionately on small businesses. Large companies are able to employ people to deal with regulation; small businesses simply do not have that option.

.

Academics from the London School of Economics have found that regulatory costs per employee are five times higher for small firms than for larger ones, that small employers spend five times as many hours per employee dealing with regulation, and that they spend almost 5 per cent. of their annual turnover on compliance. Equally, the Federation of Small Businesses has shown that the administration of pay-as-you-earn costs a business with fewer than five employees £288 per employee per year, yet for a firm with 5,000 employees, the cost is just £5 per employee.”

.
The figures are scary.

.

The trouble is how to deal with the problem. As Mr Herbert acknowledges, all past efforts, to create less regulation, better regulation, even better regulation have failed. The red tape is binding businesses ever more tightly.

.
''My Bill would confront the problem of regulation in three ways. First, it would give Ministers a duty to consider alternatives to, and exemptions from, existing regulations affecting small and medium-sized firms, and a power to create those exemptions.

.

Secondly, because the impact of regulation on microbusinesses—those with nine employees or fewer and an average annual turnover of just £130,000—is particularly disproportionate, the Bill would create a presumption that microbusinesses are exempted from any future regulation. That would protect over 4 million businesses from future regulation.

.

Thirdly, in respect of all future regulations the Bill would impose a statutory requirement to carry out a regulatory impact assessment—surprisingly, that is not a current requirement—and to consider alternatives to regulation in doing so.''

.
There are a few problems with those solutions. The biggest of them, as ever, and a little surprisingly in this case, as Mr Herbert has also been Director of Business for Sterling, there is the obvious lack of reference to the elephant in the room.

.

Just precisely, how does Mr Herbert think many of those regulations that are, incidentally, killing the small businesses on the Continent as well, going to be by-passed if they originate from the European Union? We are legally bound to implement those.

.

There are other problems. Although later in his speech Mr Herbert makes clear that his Bill allows parliamentary scrutiny of the minister’s decision, one suspects that the “proper parliamentary procedure” would be the odd negative SI that would lie before both Houses for 40 working days and that would be the end of the matter.

.
Mr Herbert is doing exactly what the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is doing – proposing to give ministers more power in the name of easing the burden of red tape. Not a happy idea.

.

Finally, the idea of exempting certain businesses from regulations instead of reforming the whole structure (something, to be fair, Mr Herbert says he would like to see) will merely impose more burdens and act as a disincentive to growth.

.

And we shall still be left with the elephant in the room.

Baa Baa Rainbow sheep

From the editor's breakfast table.

This morning, whilst munching my high fibre breakfast cereal I mused over a BBC today programme early morning report that the politically correct 'police' had struck, yet again.
.
Two children's nurseries in Oxfordshire are teaching their pre-school children a new PC version of Baa Baa Black Sheep - they are now chanting ''Baa Baa Rainbow sheep...''

.
The charity running the nurseries, Parents and Children Together (Pact), said the move was ''educational, not motivated by racial concerns.'' Pact said (unconvincingly) children were encouraged to use a wide range of words in songs, perhaps they should have said spectrum !
.
Anyway, if the Oxfordshire toddler teachers get their way we will be eating not blackberries but rainbowberries, for fear of moral rainbowmail (blackmail), whilst baking four and twenty rainbowbirds (blackbirds) baked in a (low fat) pie. In the Palace or Westminster Rainbow Rod (the renamed ancient position of Black Rod) will most definitely require a coat of many colours. Snooker loving folk will be potting rainbow then contemplating in our nations pubs the rebranding of Yorkshire's finest real ale, Rainbow Sheep.
.
As for what Hector's nephew Jesse (my black - sorry Rainbow - cat ) will think about it all when he returns from his routine (fluffy) rodent control tour I really don't know.
.
In the PC correct nursery in Oxfordshire they will no longer chant the very British traditional rhyme:
.
''Baa, baa, black sheep, have you any wool? Yes sir, yes sir, Three bags full; one for the master, and one for the dame, and one for the little boy Who lives down the lane ''

.
but will without any feeling ( yet with full PC compliance) the young ones will perhaps chant: .

.
'' Baa, baa rainbow sheep, have you any wool ? Yes person yes person, three (environmentally friendly trading standards approved) bags full; one each for the gender equality ( and non age discriminated) community leader as well as one for the young person who lives in a child friendly nanny state down the lane.''
.
PT

Telegraph fireing

There is much rejoicing in the ranks at the news that Sunday Telegraph editor Sarah Sands has been dismissed.

.

Famous for her aspirations to make the paper "intelligent and elegant", she achieved neither. The first edition under her control, in November, was graced with a picture of Kate Moss, coke-snorting supermodel, in exotic lingerie.

.

The paper went downhill from there, suffering a dramatic collapse of readership in December, of over 50,000. It is rumoured that figures due out shortly show the collapse has continued which, it is believed, triggered Mz Sands' rapid exit. She is replaced by Patience Wheatcroft, currently City and Business Editor at The Times, a post she had held since 1997.

.

Also, Eurosceptic and scourge of big government, Scotland on Sunday Editor Iain Martin, is leaving that paper to join the Daily Telegraph. With a bit of luck, we may be seeing a return to grown-up journalism in both newspapers.

The mid-week quote no 15

“As for accusations that he, (HRH Prince Charles, left) is interfering in party politics. He isn’t. He is interfering in something a damn sight more important – issue politics, which is a whole different ballgame.”
.
Carol Malone, right, Sunday Mirror columnist.
.
Clearly HRH is being well advised. Ed.

International Woman's Day

The capacity of the EU commission to capitalise on meaningless events, and then to devote its energies to fatuous, irrelevant schemes, never ceases to amaze.

.

Its latest wheeze, in conjunction with International Women's Day on Wednesday 8 March 2006, is to get its statistical body, Eurostat, to publish tables providing information on women in the EU, showing differences and similarities with men. "EU Women Work More, Live Longer, Are Better Educated, but Earn Less"

.
We are also told that women work more hours a day - including paid employment, study and household work - in every country surveyed except Sweden. The average life expectancy of women in the EU is 81.2 years, compared with 75.1 for men. Women, who account for more than half of university-level students in almost all EU member states, earn 15 percent less than men once in the workforce.

.

Women were more likely to be unemployed than men in the EU, only 32 percent of managers in the EU are female, and about a third of working women are in part-time jobs compared with 7 percent of men. The biggest gaps between men's and women's pay were in Cyprus, Estonia and Slovakia with about a 25 percent difference. The narrowest gaps were in Malta, Portugal and Belgium, at around 5 percent.

.

Nothing is for nothing, and the release of these statistics is all part of the commission’s strategy to raise awareness of women's issues, not that its members are actually interested in women per se – especially Britains EU commisioner Mr Mandelson.

.

No, the real agenda is to kick-start its stalled plans for yet another EU institution, its European Gender Institute, which was launched last year – on International Women's Day 2005 – a location for which has yet to be agreed, even though it is supposed to be up and running in January 2007..The problem, as always, is the EU's very own version of pork-barrel politics.

.

As EUpolitix points out, the institution comes with a €52.5m annual budget so there is much competition between member states as to which country will be awarded the dubious honour of hosting the offices.

The Sunday Quote no 148

'' We all know that Prime Ministers are wedded to the truth, but like other married couples they sometimes live apart.''

Saki -1870-1916 The Unbearable Bassington (1912)

The first Spitfire

This day, exactly seventy years ago, at 4.35pm on 5 March 1936, the first ever Spitfire lifted from the grass strip at Eastleigh Airport, home of Supermarine Aircraft, on its maiden flight.

.

In the hands of Captain "Mutt" Summers, the flight lasted just eight minutes. Afterwards, he stepped from the aircraft and tersely conveyed to the assembled crew that he had found no problems - then he added "I don't want anything touched" - and so the first official Spitfire was born, the cost of development to that date amounting to the sum of £14,637. This was the aircraft, alongside the Hawker Hurricane, which was to play a pivotal part in winning the Battle of Britain in 1940.

.

Back in 1936, so impressed was the Air Ministry with it that, even before the full test programme had been completed they issued a contract for 310 Spitfires on 3 June.

.

The aircraft alone, however – superb though it was – would never have performed without the parallel development of the 12-cylinder Rolls Royce Merlin engine. But there were two other developments which gave it the edge over the Messerschmitt bf 109 – one British, the other American.

.

The first was the three-bladed, variable-pitch propellor, manufactured by Rotol, and the other was leaded petrol. A consignment of the vital tetra-ethyl lead was rushed over to the UK, just before the Battle of Britain. With it, Roll Royce were able to increase the power of their Merlins, which gave the aircraft those extra few knots that made all the difference.

.

Behind the fighters, of course, there was that other British invention, the chain of early-warning radars, linked in with a then unique system of fighter control, which enabled the embattled Royal Air Force to prevail against the greater might of the hitherto unbeaten Luftwaffe.

.

Interestingly, seventy years later, the Spitfire has come in the top three in the Design Museum contest for greatest British design since 1900, the other two being Harry Beck's 1931 London Underground map and, perversely, the Anglo-French Concorde.

.

In a hundred years time, if the Design Museum runs another contest, this one for the greatest British design since 2000, you can almost guarantee that there will not be a Spitfire-equivalent. In this era of European "co-operation", the days when we built our own war machines have long gone.

.

Lest we forget.

.

A very British meeting

The place to be on Friday March 24th, 2006, is The Stanley Livingstone Room, Radisson Edwardian Hotel (formerly the Free Trade Halls), Peter Street, Manchester.

.

Our learned friend and prolific political writer, Dr Richard North will be addressing the meeting, on the salient subject of, "Will small British businesses go the way of the dodo?"

.

The meeting begins at 4.30pm, and further details are available from verybritishproductions@yahoo.co.uk

.

Britain's largest member based business organisation, The Federation of Small Businesses, will be holding their annual conference at the Palace Hotel only a short walk down the road.

.

We are pleased to announce this as an Alternative Fringe Meeting to the somewhat more staid official fringe meeting on the FSB official agenda.

.

Dr North, a former FSB member is always controversial, deeply knowledgable and profoundly entertaining (his skills continue to be rejected by the management of the FSB) will be signing copies of his latest literary work; a new paperback edition of "The Great Deception", (Continuum, £9.99) best-selling history of the EU, co authored with Christopher Booker. This work has been extensively revised and updated, to include the story behind the rise and semi-fall of the EU constitution. When the first edition appeared in 2003, it was praised by historians and commentators as by far the fullest and most revealing account of the "European project" to date, and sold more than 10,000 copies in the first few weeks.

.

As any practising business person will confirm the EU has a profound effect on the process of business. Those who are asking whether the FSB's policy of appeasment towards Britians' true rulers is in the best interests of the independent business community will particularly benefit from the event at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester.

.

The cost of regulation

The front page of the Telegraph business section runs the headline Government regulations have cost British business £50bn since Labour came to power, billions more than the Treasury expects to collect in corporation tax this year.

.

This is research carried out by the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) based on official figures, and shows that the burden to business of complying with workplace, consumer protection and environmental regulations has reached £10bn a year. Even if no new regulations are passed over the next five years, says the BCC, the total red tape burden since Labour came to power will hit £100bn by 2011.

.

It is not until you look at the list of regulation about which the BCC complains, available only online, that you realise that by far the bulk is EU-originated.

.

Yet, what we get from Sally Low, the BCC's director of policy, is that the "sheer volume of new rules was overwhelming businesses and the government had to act."

.

Precisely how is our government supposed to act ?

Please can we spend our own money ?

Last week there was much ado about the threat to close upwards of ten thousand rural post offices in Britain; causing much distress to their customers and the hard pressed small business community in our glorious countryside.

The fate of the post offices centred on the annual £150 million subsidy to keep the post offices open. The Scotsman boldly stated: "EU's £150m lifeline will save rural post offices from closure".

.

Most newspaper readers will think that the EU has actually coughed up with some money but scrutiny of the story reveals the sad truth. The "EU lifeline" is nothing more than approval given by the EU commission to our own government, so that it can spend our money on the post office subsidy.

.

Before British ministers could expend our own money on a vital social service, they had to go grovelling to Brussels in order to convince the commission that the subsidy did not amount to "unfair state aid".

.

Amazingly the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) in a News Release (PR/2006/24 on 24 Feburary) '' applauds the rural post offices decision'' and welcomed the decision by the European Commission to permit the Government’s £300 million (!) support package for rural post offices.''

.

This is how we are now governed, without effective opposition and compliant support from those that should know (and understand) better.

.